> I posted this to Stack Overflow (http://stackoverflow.com/questions/36504292/iso-pascal-record-variants-without-a-field-name), but it hasn't gotten any feedback
There are 2 answers already ATM, so I won't add the 3rd one (hard to get upvote :p) > what's the purpose of the Case Boolean part? That's what makes variant record different from ordinary record. > I understand that you can do case MyVal: Boolean; then MyVal becomes the > field selector. However, what is the purpose when there is no field > selector, just a type? The same, it's useful when you have no need to check which variant is active ATM. I seldom do this, I always think the selector can be useful someday. > I don't quite understand what the selector-type is It's in the first sentence: "With each variant-part shall be associated a type designated the selector-type possessed by the variant-part." Just imagine there is this selector-type owned by variant-part, whose meaning is decided later because it depends on conditions explained afterwards. > why it would be a new ordinal-type because multiple constant values in the case-constant-list does not have a type yet, so it's a new ordinal type when used. > Wouldn't the selector-type just be the type like in case Boolean of? yes and no, see above. > And what does each case-constant-list having only one case-constant have > to do with it? When only one case-constant is used, there's no confusion, each of the constant will of course should be in the range of tag-type. Hence, no new type required to be constructed. -- View this message in context: http://free-pascal-general.1045716.n5.nabble.com/How-do-record-variants-without-a-field-name-tp5724866p5724868.html Sent from the Free Pascal - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
